Making Tank Destroyers and Glass Cannons Viable

Suggestions
1

In their current implementation, tank destroyers, assault guns, casemates and glass cannons are very weak and have no advantages over using conventional tanks

A good example of this case is the StuG series of assault guns versus the late-war Panzer IV (F2, G, J). At the same BR, the StuG offers no tangible advantages compared to the Panzer IV:

StuG III:

  • Smaller profile, perhaps better survivability from the front
  • Casemate, much worse gun handling and flexibility (huge disadvantage)
  • No coaxial MG

Panzer IV:

  • Turreted, allows for more flexibility in battle
  • Coaxial MG
  • Somewhat worse protection from the front
  • Higher profile

When most maps are corridors, it offers no major incentive to playing casemates and the like when conventional tanks offer the same level of firepower and much more flexibility.

The increased mobility of many of these tank destroyers is completely useless considering the layout of most maps in this game, and the role tanks play in direct fire support.

This brings us to the whole concept of a tank destroyer, which is mounting a large gun on a comparatively small chassis. See the StuG III, where it mounted a 75mm PaK 40 when the regular Panzer III chassis couldn’t. Their purpose was to destroy other tanks at a fairly cheap cost.

Their BR placements in-game should reflect this purpose. All assault guns, casemates and TD’s should be lowered by 1 or 2 BRs, depending on their competitors and the timing of their development relative to WWII.

Here are some proposals for BR changes:

GERMANY
8.8cm Flak 37 Sfl. BR 4 → 3
15 cm Panzerwerfer BR 4 → 3
ALL STUGS: BR 3 → 2
Jagdpanzer IV BR 4 → 3
Panzer IV/70 (A) BR 4 → 3
Panzer IV/70 (V) BR 5 → 4

USA
M10 Wolverine BR 4 → 3
M18 Hellcat BR 4 → 3
Achilles BR 4 → 3

JAPAN
Ho-Ni III BR 3 → 2

SOVIETS
SU-85M BR 5 → 4
KV-2 BR 4 → 3

Still though, these placements are still kinda unbalanced, which emphasizes the need for BR decompression.

17 Likes
2

high quality post

8 Likes
3

Many issues with this post.

8,8cm Flak37 isn’t a TD, and it’s fine at BR-4. It absolutely decimates infantry, since it has a fast firing 88.
15cm Panzerwerfer isn’t a TD, it’s purely anti-infantry and it does that very well, hence it’s at BR 4.
StuGs aren’t TDs.
Jagdpanzer 4 would be frontally invulnerable to everything BR 3.
Jagdpanzer IV/70 would be frontally invulnerable to everything in BR 3 as well.
Same situation for the Panzer IV/70 in BR 4.
KV-2 isn’t a tank destroyer, it’s almost purely anti-infantry. Same situation as the Panzerwerfer.

5 Likes
4

Thanks for your post.

Normally I agree with most ideas but here I must strongly protest.

The last thing we need is a mobile '88 Flak at BR III. Not to mention all the other vehicles.

BR II and BR III is good at the moment, please dont ruin it.

It’s also hard enough trying to destroy friggin Panther tanks with crappy American AT gun and M9 bazooka let alone all these other vehicles.

You want KV 2 at BR III? I suggest you read about the KV 2 in the War and how almost impossible it was to destroy them.

If I recall correctly in real life the Germans tried everything they had against a KV 2 and it wasnt until the tank ran out of ammunition and Germans were able to sneak up at night when the Soviet crew was exhausted and lob grenades inside. The tank itself wasnt damaged much.

Oh dear I see you want Stugs at BR II, thats even worse. BR I and II should be for fun and newer players to learn the game not some wannabe to get free kills in a Stug. You do realise that rank II infantry AT weapons are almost useless against higher rank tanks don’t you?
Does that really sound like a good idea?

Moving the KV 2 down alone will make the wehraboos complain heaps and for once they’d be right.

1 Like
5

That’s very fair.

I do think though many of those issues would be resolved with BR decompression, which the game desperately needs for both guns and vehicles.

1 Like
6

One big factor is that the most of the maps in this game are small, offer less possibility for this type of tanks to flanking and moving around the map to find a spot and angle to counter other tanks. For one example, the Hellcat, it’s very fast, good pen cannon but fragile. Map being small forced tank destroyers to face to face with other thicker tanks which if not shoot first, it died. How could it be shine to its full potential while most battle area of the maps is locked and almost no space to maneuvering.

1 Like
7

This is just ridiculous.

There’s no way those vehicles should be BR3 and face BR1 vehicles.

And this is good joke as well. Just because stugs currently aren’t meta vehicles, there’s no need to make them completely broken without any reason whatsoever.

2 Likes
8

I only agree with the StuG, M10 and Jagdpanzer IV.

The rest are fine in their current BR

9

I agree in that most players are going to choose the obviously superior option. Personally I like variety so I will play vehicles like tank destroyers just for fun whenever I feel like it

Once again larger battles, larger playable areas, larger objective sizes would fix many things including the viability of different vehicles types

1 Like
10

Well that’s not necessarily true.

60mm of sloped armor is probably indeed too much for BR3, especially since the Jagdpanzer IV doesn’t seem to have any real weakspot, however the Jagdpanzer L48 version is sitting in BR4 right now - which makes it quite useless.

What should happen is that it should get its armor increased, only the first Jagdpanzer IV prototypes had 60mm of frontal armor - most Jagdpanzer IV that actually got the L48 gun had 80mm of armor - not 60mm.

Then the Jagdpanzer IV L70(A) is not impenetrable at BR3, it would pretty much have KV1 armor.

  • So my oppinion is that the Panther tanks should move to BR5, while Tiger 1 tanks should move to BR4. At the same time Jagdpanzer IV L48 should have its real world armor increased to 80mm.
    Jagdpanzer IVL70A should then stay at BR4 as the first German tank to have the L70 gun - as a compromise for its bad flat Panzer IV armor, while Jagdpanzer IV L70 stays at BR5, but gets something sweet added to it, like a usable ammout of MG ammo, or special armor piercing rounds.

  • Stug III F should absolutely be a BR2 tank but to say ALL Stugs should be BR2 is stupid, F version got the exact same armor protection of BR1 Panzer III, while having a BR3 gun. BR2 is the perfect compromise.
    Stug III G on the other hand has pretty strong armor and should stay at BR3 - however a top mounted MG should become standard for later STUGs + some even had coax MGs. In the end Stugs are assault guns, not TDs, so having MGs or better infantry support power is a must. Also STUG III A should be BR1 and should get 80% of its ammo as HE instead, since again it was a assault gun, not a TD.

11

Excuse me you unironically want Premium 152mm shells thrown at BR1 noobs?

1 Like
12

I might be stupid but i dont think kv 2 is better than kv 1. It has hella slow reload and the high profile and weaker turret armor makes it more vulnerable compared to standard kv 1. The big he splash damage is nice but most of the time its an overkill unless your enemies are all together. Kv 1 on the other hand has enough pen to deal with any br 1-3 tank frontally and the 76mm he does the job well and has better firerate.

If br 3 wouldnt fight br 1 then i would see kv 2 in br 3 reasonable

13

And what is the point of 2 seconds faster reload if it still sucks in every other aspect compared to the Tiget H1?

Again. Tiger H1 is better at this and can also kill tanks at its BR and has a actual useful MG and armor and does not need to be close to resupply point.

And?

Almost all of them are except for the Panzer IV/70. For US, there almost no difference between BR4 and BR5 tanks since all of them except for two use 76mm cannons.
Same applies to the Soviets where the 85mm should be enough.

14

Much higher damage potential within a smaller timeframe.

15cm Panzerwerfer can also kill tanks. Saying that Tiger H is better than 15cm Panzerwerfer for anti-infantry work is delusional.

Title of this post is rebalancing TD’s and glass cannons. StuGs are neither.

You’re saying a bunch of nonsense, no idea what you are even trying to say.

1 Like
15

2 seconds for the same damage.
Wow.
Only a shame the crew is already dead after the first reload because inf sniped them out or explosions wiped them out.
Really weird that not more people wanna spend 50 shekels for a worse err sorry better Tiger H1.

Oh my god “TeChNiCaLlY” (though they were used as TDs as the war went on and they still have shitty armor)

For high-IQ intellectuals.
What is the difference between a BRV 76mm Sherman vs the Panzer IV/70 and BRV 76mm Sherman vs the Panzer IV/70?
What is the difference between a BRV 85mm Commie Tank vs the Panzer IV/70 and BRV 85mm Commie Tank vs the Panzer IV/70?
Still to complicated?

1 Like
16

Screenshot (4630)
Screenshot (4630)1768×144 29.3 KB

Btw. this is the “much higher” damage potential.
Wow. Worse HE wave dmg, worse fragment radius, worse dmg per fragment…
BUT five more fragments. Five more. Five! In two seconds!

Checkmate!

1 Like
17

I never said it’s better than the Tiger H, I said it was better at anti-infantry work, not overall.

They were designed as assault guns and they were doctrinally employed as assault guns. The fact that Germans used them in the tank destroyer role out of desperation doesn’t change the fact that it’s an assault gun.

Also StuGs have pretty good armor, one even has 90mm-100mm frontal armor, which stops most BR-3 cannons.

Ah yes, only BR4/5 allied cannons in the game are the M1 76mm and ZiS-S-53 85mm. Forget the M3 90mm, D-10S 100mm, D-25T 122mm, 76mm ZiS-5 and others.

18

I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. If you don’t understand simple maths then I won’t waste my time

1 Like
19

That is SO good that it is as good as a Tiger overall because it has 2 seconds shorter reload time (and five more fragments in its HE shells.)
… obviously…
Makes me wonder why it is not also better against tanks with two seconds faster gun.
(Also would like to know how a tank without an coax. MG is better against infantry but the two seconds (and five more fragments) I guess)

And? The BAR M1918 is not an MG, but it is used as one in the game and was by the US during WW2. The FG42 was a weapon made for paras, and here it is used like a service rifle, or the StG44 technically being a weapon intended to replace the service rifle of the Germans but is used as an Assaulter weapon in-game…
No, we need to embrace “TeChNicAlLy” for reasons that probably have something to do with these two seconds (and five fragments).

Ah, it is still too complicated for you.
I named them because these cannons appear across both BRs and if the devs think it works, I would like to know why it works against BRV 76mm tanks but not against BRIV 76mm tanks, especially since there is only one 75mm tank in BRIV and one 90mm tank in BRV which I am really sorry for not including.
Of course, this is unless the M4A1 tank has a two-second longer reload time.

Because you are too dumb for wording, which is kinda sad with the dumb “TeChNiCaLlY” argument why we don’t need to talk about the StuG.

So unless you cannot understand what you are writing (which granted can be a probability), you stated that there are two advantages: faster reloading/ smaller timeframe and “much higher damage potential”.
According to you, the “much higher damage potential” is clearly not the result of the two-second faster reload time; otherwise, the sentence would be different. Otherwise, you would have just kept saying that it shoots faster or that it shoots quicker and, as a result, deals “much more damage.”
Currently, it shoots faster (assuming the crew didn’t get instantly sniped or artillery-killed) and has “much faster damage potential”. Stick to one.

1 Like
20

No, no the rocket thing can stay in BR IV. No need to cause unnecessary suffering in BR II with that piece of garbage